Fear of the Polyamorous Possibility

Coming to the realization that there is an option to have openly conducted non-monogamous relationships is what I call the polyamorous possibility. Once people become aware that there is middle-ground between monogamy and cheating they have grasped the polyamorous possibility, and can never unthink it again. They may reject the idea or decide to explore it further, but the potential for themselves or their partner to initiate discussion of a polyamorous relationship exists in a way it had not before they became aware that polyamory is a social option. In my research, I have found that three common reactions follow realization of the polyamorous possibility.

1. Blasé

The polyamorous possibility is not a big deal for some people -- they become aware of it and it simply rolls off of them. These folks often shelve it as an "oddity" they would not consider, like getting a facial tattoo or joining a cult. Others are already practicing polyamory and glad to have a name for it, but the realization is not earth shattering because they have already been doing it. In some cases, however, the polyamorous possibility is mind-blowing, and the freak-out usually expresses in one of two ways.

2. Delight

Some people experience feelings of freedom and relief when they become aware of the polyamorous possibility.

For some people, realizing the polyamorous possibility is like taking a deep breath for the first time in their lives. These folks get excited and want to dive right in, giddy with freedom and relief. Finally free of what some have called compulsory monogamy, the possibility of truthfully having multiple lovers can feel extremely liberating. Becoming openly poly can also be a huge relief from the burdens of lying and cheating, and offers people who have caused suffering and suffered themselves as failed monogamists/cheaters the opportunity to find a different way.

3. Terror

The polyamorous possibility can seem menacing to some people.

For other people, realizing the polyamorous possibility can feel extremely threatening, especially if their partner has ever given any indication that they might want to have an open relationship. Several personal and social issues can contribute to a fearful response.

Monogamous by Orientation

In the same way that some people say polyamory is a sexual or relational orientation for them, others report that they are innately or inherently monogamous. Those who are monogamous by orientation say that they do not feel attraction for others when they are in love with someone. For those folks, the possibility that their partner might love someone else can feel like their partner does not love them any more.

This fear can be especially potent for those who have been cheated on in the past, worry that their partner may cheat on them now or in the future, or feel guilt for their own past cheating. Others have parents who cheated on each other and are wary of nonmonogamy because of the mistrust the lying they observed in their families of origin. Hearing about the potential for open relationships and knowing they might spread to your social circle can make some people with unresolved issues around infidelity profoundly uncomfortable.

In addition to these personal issues, two larger social factors also shape negative reactions to the polyamorous possibility.

Sex Negativity

Sex negativity is the general attitude of fear and suspicion that surrounds anything to do with sexuality and those who relish it. It is the disdain that gives words like slut or whore their punch, and ensures that sexuality is always seen as dirty, marginal, or offensive. In larger society the impacts of sex negativity are evident in many ways, from the lack of sex education to the sluggish governmental response to HIV/AIDS during the 1980s. In a polyamorous context, sex negativity often comes across as disdain for those nasty horny people who like sex so much that they have it with multiple people – who knows what kinds of disgusting things they get up to!

Universal Appeal?

Among forms of sexual nonconformity, polyamory is unusual in that it could potentially be appealing to everyone who desires intimate relationships with other people. Most people are heterosexual, and it is readily apparent that not every one experiences same-sex sexual attraction or desire. In other words, not everyone has the capacity or desire to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Unless they are monogamous by orientation, however, most people in long-term relationships -- regardless of sexual orientation -- have had the experience of being attracted to someone else besides their partner. Almost everyone has the potential to be polyamorous in a way that many people do not have that same potential to be gay. This near-universality can make polyamory seem especially menacing.

The most common reaction that I've seen amongst anyone who has a modicum of life experience is dubiousness based on experience. They have seen that most people have enough trouble with one primary sexual relationship. How in the world can those folks hope to manage two, three, or more? It's like taking a skier who can barely manage the "green" bunny trail and sending that skier on the Olympic downhill. Can anyone spell, wipe-out?

You are absolutely correct that polyamory is a complete wipe-out for some people. Staying with your skiing analogy, people who have poor balance (jealousy), hate the cold (too busy in their lives already), get altitude sickness (don't like to be around people very much and prefer to be alone), and dislike the feeling of sliding (prefer consistency without change) might be unhappy if they try to ski, and maybe should take up tennis or Tai Chi.

On the other hand, there are some attributes and skills that make skiing (polyamory) fun, things like a love for speed (enjoying novelty), ability to have fun even when freezing (ability to tolerate conflict), strong knees (willingness to practice communication skills), and great cardiovascular health (strong and honest relationship with self). People with those skills and attributes would probably have a lot more fun on the polyamorous slopes than would the others who prefer tennis or Tai Chi. There is nothing wrong with being a tennis player or a skier, or preferring to play squash or Dungeons and Dragons. To each her own.

The way you frame the differences between monogamy and polyamory approaches and maybe crosses the line between objectivity and bias. Given that monogamists also often express an air of superiority around their choices, polyamorists ought to avoid doing the same. You cite primarily positive attributes of polyamorous inclined people: fun-loving, novelty-loving, ability to tolerate conflict, communicativeness, honesty. You cite negative attributes of monogamists: jealousy, too consumed by daily business, anti-social, fear of change. I try to adopt a middle course, that most humans are probably inclined to polyamory but resist it for various reasons, some of which are negative (jealousy, anti-sociability) but some of which are positive, such as regard for a mate's feelings and self-knowledge indicating that polyamory won't work for this particular person. I categorize myself in the latter camp. Polyamory won't work for me, because I was never particularly social growing up. I didn't date until college, and then tended towards serial monogamy rather than casual dating. I attach and don't really consider other options for love until I am unattached again. Maybe you view those as negative characteristics--I certainly have viewed myself negatively, at various times, since I came of age in a society that values novel experiences over consistency. But the tone of your piece ought to be one of "to each his own" rather than "polyamorists are a higher life form".

I did not intend to come across as condescending or superior, but clear Freudian slip if I used only positive for polyamory and negative for monogamy. When I write the blog I edit it at least three times and think things through more carefully, but when I am responding to comments it can kind of blend in with email, feeding the cat, and folding the laundry, so I give it less attention. Clearly I need to pay better attention to both my responses and my bias. Ironically, I am not poly myself for many of the same reasons as you, and I definitely do not mean to proselytize. The Polyamorists Next Door, my new book, got my full attention and is quite thoughtfully written. It also contains a lot of information on the disadvantages of polyamory, so it is less polyanna than my response to the previous poster would indicate.

Hi greypilgrim. When I read Elisabeth's comment (as well as her article), I did not intuit a tone of superiority or any indication that she is urging folks to take up the poly way. Because societal expectations and norms can be so heavily loaded, and largely negative toward issues such as ethical non-monogamy, I only read her choice of positive vs. negatives in the ski analogy as a potential attempt to even the playing field on some concepts we were all, however indirectly, taught were "wrong" or "bad."

I felt the article was reasoned and concise. It met with my own experiences of peoples' responses to poly.

I ask this gently and in the interest only of fostering introspective understanding: I wonder if you've had a negative personal experience with someone who practices polyamory, and perhaps that history sneaked into your reading of this article or its comments?

I really appreciate this article. It's a subject that polys don't address often. In 1969, my partner and I had been poly for a couple of years. We went to see "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" with another couple who were close friends but not poly, and who we had not discussed our being poly with. We went out to desert and coffee and sat across from each other. I quipped that perhaps all over America two couples were going out to this movie, then going for desert and sitting across the table from each other and there would be this huge silence. And there was a huge silence.

In the '60's, we had to take risks to find new poly partners. The risks were loosing friendship, loosing the trust of others, and being hit on by people who thought if we had other loves, it meant they could jump in the sack with us if they felt like it. Now, with all the online and face to face poly groups in every state, one can find people from within a group that already knows how to do poly. That is so wonderful!

The quibble is that I wouldn't say poly is a middle ground between monogamy and cheating. In talking about making a living, one wouldn't say self employment is a middle ground between working for someone else and bank robbing. Poly is a way to synthesize three strong needs that many (not all) people have, the desire for long term sexual, loving relationships, the desire for more than one sexual partner, and the desire to be honest, ethical, and supportive of the people they partner with. There are other ethical (IMHO) ways to have additional sexual partners, swinging, and seeing sex workers. But these are not designed to lead to long term relationships, although they sometimes do.

You make an excellent point, I agree that polyamory is often a lot more than simply a middle-ground between monogamy and cheating. I said that for ease of expression and economy of words, but it is not correct that it is ALL there is to polyamory.

Generally poly folks are not particularly shallow, at least no more so than monogamists, cheaters, polygynists, or anyone else. In fact, those people who stick with polyamory generally have to actively consider their feelings, motivations, boundaries, and commitments. Unless they intentionally discuss and construct a poly relationship, people generally become serial monogamous by default. Rather than shallowly not thinking about anything, to make a serious go of poly relationships people have to intentionally think about things and talk about them on purpose. Not shallow.

By the way, there are poly people all over the place, not just in the US. I talk about the US mostly because it is where I have conducted my research, but it happens all over the world, especially in places where women can be financially independent like the US, Canada, Western Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia, plus a growing presence in South America. Not so much in Africa or Asia, at least in the form polyamory takes elsewhere.

What is the difference between "serial monogamists" and "serial polyamorists"? Is it more moral to have several ongoing short-to-medium term relationships (how many polys do you know in this category?) than having one relationship at a time? I've read so many poly writings asserting "mating for life" is unreasonable and so many relationships over a period of one's life is more realistic. What difference does it make whether they are concurrent or consecutive?

I really don't agree with the statement made from a person stating that poly is only for shallow people. In my eyes, it takes great commitment, honesty and trust in order for a polyamorous relationship to work.

The point of the skiing analogy is not that people don't get better and reach their level of competency by practicing. Of course they do. The point is, most skiers end up at a medium level and stay there, no matter how much they do it beyond that. That's what they're equipped to do. It's like singers. Practice may get you from meh to okay, but it will not get you great. People in intimate relationships are like skiers and singers that way. Most people can barely muddle through a relationship with one person. Why in the world would they want to complicate it with two or more? Would you really advise someone who's muddling on the greens that they ought to move it up to the black diamond runs, so they can really fly? Oy.

Happy poly folks, do your thing. And don't look down your nose at those who don't. Greypilgrim's point above is well taken. There's a certain superiority in the piece that is not attractive. If that's the attitude that poly folks have? Double oy.

How are the poly folks looking down their nose at monogamist? I think it is the other way around look at shallow guy up above. Poly people can lose their job, friends, and family for living the life they desire. All because people look down on them for living open minded. Just because we enjoy other people in our life's doesn't make us bad people, bad employees, or bad parents. What we do is nobody's business as long as we are not hurting anyone. What makes you happy is different then what makes me happy.
Having an open mind to sex and being with someone that believes that too makes me happy. No black diamond slope here. Actually it works in reverse of what you think. My relationship is stronger now then it was before when we where repressing our feellings.

Maybe those folks muddling along in monogamous relationship are doing so because the current concept of a spouse being a friend, lover, co-parent, etc... is inherently flawed. Maybe it's unreasonable to expect one other person to be able to meet all the needs that are supposed to be bound up in marriage.

There it is - that smug attitude that assumes that monogamous relationships are inherently flawed. Maybe it is equally unreasonable to expect that having multiple partners somehow fills a void in people who don't know how to truly invest in a partnership. See? Smug goes both ways.

And for the record - the polyamorists that I've known, and I know quite a few, are often socially inept (borderline Asperger in some cases) or have significant personal issues that they are avoiding dealing with.. Leads me to wonder if they are using "engaging" multiple partners as a way to avoid confronting things that being with a single partner in a deep relationship would require.

As my two wives and i engage in what we call tradional polyamory (we're non-religious, adult responsible) during our family's 35 year journey, the top three responses have been 1. Oh your Mormon 2. Your like those ppl, the Sister Wives and 3. What's that?
A distant 4th, Your going to hell/it's a sin, is from those folks who are well meaning but deceived or ignorant of what their holy book actually says.

Why do people who are willing to have sex with anyone automatically assume people who only want one sex partner in a committed relationship are "sex negative"? I thoroughly enjoy sex, think it's a wonderful, beautiful gift God gave humans and that humans give to each other. I just prefer to share it with one person, and would really appreciate if that one person wasn't climbing out of someone else's bed to climb into mine. But, in your opinion, that makes me "sex negative".
Do you call people who eat sensibly "food negative"?
People who obey speed limits are "speed negative"?

Sex negativity isnt always about people who are monogamous and wish to have only 1 life partner, whether they be their first and only sexual partner or 33rd, and now have gotten through that phase of their life..

But is more about the people that look down on others who choose to look at someone and slut shame them. People who belive and belittle others for having had sex multiple times before marriage, because they enjoy it. Or those who are currently deciding to do so because it is what makes them happy.

The difference being that when you find you love sex, but don't find the "one", but decide to have sex with people you click with anyway, and people look down on you for it. That is sex negativity. The norm of enjoying sex and having sex with your married partner is always seen as a positive. (As long as both are happy with it.)